CHAPTER 57
WIRETAPPING AND ELECTRONIC SURVEILLANCE
Subchapter
A. General Provisions
B. Wire, Electronic or Oral Communication
C. Stored Wire and Electronic Communications and Transactional Records Access
D. Mobile Tracking Devices
E. Pen Registers, Trap and Trace Devices and Telecommunication Identification Interception
Devices
F. Miscellaneous
Enactment. Present Chapter 57 was added October 4, 1978, P.L.831, No.164, effective in 60 days.
Prior Provisions. Former Chapter 57, which related to invasion of privacy, was added December 6, 1972,
P.L.1482, No.334, and repealed October 4, 1978, P.L.831, No.164, effective in 60 days.
Cross References. Chapter 57 is referred to in section 1522 of Title 4 (Amusements); section 3575 of
Title 42 (Judiciary and Judicial Procedure).
SUBCHAPTER A
GENERAL PROVISIONS
Sec.
5701. Short title of chapter.
5702. Definitions.
Subchapter Heading. The heading of Subchapter A was added October 21, 1988, P.L.1000, No.115, effective
immediately.
§ 5701. Short title of chapter.
This chapter shall be known and may be cited as the "Wiretapping and Electronic Surveillance
Control Act."
Notes of Decisions
Cited in
119
cases (
29 in the last 5 years), 1975–2026 · leading case:
Commonwealth v. Rega, 933 A.2d 997 (Pa. 2007).
Commonwealth v. Rega, 933 A.2d 997 (Pa. 2007).
· cites it 2× “rrant, Corporal Jeffrey Lee averred the following information: that the jury pool had been selected and jury questionnaires turned over to Appellant’s attorneys, who indicated that they had passed on those questionnaires to Appellant; the District Attorney had requested and…”
Com. v. Lehman, P., 275 A.3d 513 (Pa. Super. Ct. 2022).
· cites it 2× “3 On June 1, 2021, the trial court sentenced ____________________________________________ 1See Pennsylvania Wiretapping and Electronic Surveillance Control Act, 18 Pa.C.S. § 5701 et seq. 2 See Pretrial Opinion (“PTO”), 9/29/20, at 3-5 (addressing the wiretap issue); id.”
Commonwealth v. Blystone, 549 A.2d 81 (Pa. 1988).
· cites it 3× “Because I disagree with the majority opinion’s conclusion regarding the constitutionality of the Wiretapping and Electronic Surveillance Control Act, 18 Pa.C.S. § 5701 et. seq., I must dissent.”
Commonwealth v. Katona, 191 A.3d 8 (Pa. Super. Ct. 2018).
· cites it 2× “We first turn our attention to the Wiretapping and Electronic Surveillance Control Act (hereinafter "the Act"), 18 Pa.C.S. §§ 5701 - 5782. I The Wiretap Act The Act prohibits the intentional interception of any oral communication unless all parties consent to the recording.”
Commonwealth v. Brion, 652 A.2d 287 (Pa. 1994).
· cites it 2× “The Wiretapping and Electronic Surveillance Control Act, 18 Pa.C.S. § 5701, et seq., defines an oral communication as "[a]ny oral communication uttered by a person possessing an expectation that such communication is not subject to interception under circumstances justifying…”
Commonwealth v. Baldwin, 422 A.2d 838 (Pa. Super. Ct. 1980).
· cites it 5× “334, § 1, 18 Pa.C.S. §§ 5701, et seq. (Repealed) See note 7, infra.”
Commonwealth v. Byrd, 185 A.3d 1015 (Pa. Super. Ct. 2018).
“18 Pa.C.S. § 5701, et seq. The Commonwealth filed an appeal in an unrelated matter with respect to Byrd at Docket No.”
Commonwealth v. Dobbins, 934 A.2d 1170 (Pa. 2007).
· cites it 2× “[9] Specifically, for manufacturing methamphetamine, the trial court sentenced Appellant to pay a $300.”
Commonwealth v. Shreffler, 201 A.3d 757 (Pa. Super. Ct. 2018).
“Appellant's counsel may file an amended motion to suppress, and the court may hold a suppression hearing at its discretion.”
Commonwealth v. Cole, 167 A.3d 49 (Pa. Super. Ct. 2017).
“Next, Appellant contends that police violated Pennsylvania’s Wiretapping and Electronic Surveillance Control Act (Wiretap Act), 18 Pa.C.S. § 5701 et seq., when it tracked his''cell phone’s live-ping data and collected his historical phone records.”
Commonwealth v. DeBlase, 515 A.2d 564 (Pa. 1986).
· cites it 4× “The Pennsylvania Wiretapping and Electronic Surveillance Control Act, 18 Pa.C.S. § 5701 et seq., clearly prohibits the kind of activity in which Swinehart was engaged.”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.